1. Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco added a clause to the handbook for Catholic high school teachers in four diocesan schools. The clause asked teachers to affirm basic Catholic doctrine and not to publicly contradict Church teaching in order to avoid confusing students.

3. The Archbishop responded with a letter to these eight lawmakers, saying “would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general?…I respect your right to employ or not employ whomever you wish to advance your mission. I simply ask the same respect from you.”

4. Then, two of the lawmakers demanded an investigation into the “working conditions” in diocesan high schools, a blatant bullying tactic to force him to back down on defending religious liberty.

5. The Archbishop has not backed down. He has announced he would form a committee of theology teachers to help articulate the changes.

Archbishop Cordileone has been courageous in his defense of religious liberty. Show him your support!

The fight for religious freedom in San Francisco continues on. Read this breaking news from CBS in San Francisco about Archbishop Cordileone’s courageous stand for Catholic schools:

“Two Bay Area lawmakers are seeking an investigation of working conditions at high schools administrated by the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco, over the archbishop’s proposed morality clauses for teachers.

“California cannot become a laboratory for discrimination under the guise of religion,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter sent Monday. They said the rules “set a dangerous precedent for workers’ rights through manipulations of law that deprive employees of civil rights guaranteed to all Californians.”

This is an outrage and a blatant violation of religious liberty.

For asking employees of a private Catholic school to publicly practice what they preach, Archbishop Cordileone gets completely slammed by the media and the very teachers he is trying to guide.

Investigating “working conditions” in Catholic schools is just an excuse to discriminate against religious organization.

The Archbishop released a document clarifying Catholic teaching on issues such as the sanctity of all life, the definition of marriage, contraception, and other points of Catholic doctrine. He asked that teachers in Catholic schools “avoid fostering confusion among the faithful and any dilution of the schools’ primary Catholic mission. [They] are expected to arrange and conduct their lives so as not to visibly contradict, undermine or deny these truths.”

He wrote that this was not meant to target teachers for dismissal or micromanage their personal lives. But for the sake of the students, they are asked to notpublicly contradict Church teaching.

And now a group of eight California lawmakers are demanding the Archbishop “reconsider and withdraw” the reforms he instituted. These anti-Catholic politicians accused the Archbishop of being “divisive” and are demanding that he “stop his attack” on lesbians and gays.

The Archbishop responded late last week: “would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general?… I respect your right to employ or not employ whomever you wish to advance your mission. I simply ask the same respect from you.”

It’s worth asking: Why is this group of lawmakers (all 8 are Democrats) trying to get an bishop to change Church policies? I thought members of the Democratic Party believed in a “separation of Church and State”?

But of course, the First Amendment right to religious freedom was not written to muzzle the freedoms of American citizens. That constitutional right was written precisely to protect the rights of all Americans, including Archbishop Cordileone, from ambitious and powerful lawmakers like the eight who wrote that letter.

Standing up to the secular elites is not easy. Bishops who defend the faith are rarely applauded.

That’s why we decided to write this letter.

All Catholics should be thankful for courageous shepherds like Archbishop Cordileone.

He needs our prayers and support. We want him to know CV is behind him 100%.

]]>https://www.catholicvote.org/will-you-pray-for-him/feed/177Faithful, joyful, fearsome — A Life in the Public Squarehttps://www.catholicvote.org/a-life-in-the-public-square/
https://www.catholicvote.org/a-life-in-the-public-square/#commentsThu, 12 Feb 2015 19:57:03 +0000CatholicVotehttp://www.catholicvote.org/?p=65036

His story is one of mischief, brilliance, conversion, faithfulness, fearlessness, and politics. Until his death in 2009, Father Richard John Neuhaus was a powerhouse in American public life and a monument in American Catholic history, modeling what it means to be a Catholic and an American. His story is not one to miss.

Randy Boyagoda, an extraordinary author best known for his work in fiction, knew that someone had to tell Fr. Neuhaus’ story — and that it deserved to be told well. Earlier this week, Mr. Boyagoda’s biography of Fr. Neuhaus was released by Random House, proving both the author’s brilliant writing ability and the significance of his subject.

As an organization that strives to be both Catholic and American, CatholicVote.org draws great inspiration from the late Fr. Neuhaus, leading us to interview Mr. Boyagoda about the American hero he came to know so well. In short, we highly recommend the book for every American Catholic.

Here’s what Randy Boyagoda had to say in answer to our questions:

What inspired you to write this biography?

Shortly after Fr. Neuhaus died, I wrote a profile of him for The Walrus, a Canadian magazine of ideas and culture, basically arguing that he, Neuhaus, was the most influential Canadian-born intellectual in American life of the past forty years, and probably very few Canadians knew about him. In turn, and frankly underwhelmed by the prospect of writing another conventional academic monograph, I approached Neuhaus’ longtime friend, George Weigel (his daughter and my wife went to college together, by coincidence), to see if anyone was working on a biography. I presumed someone was. When Weigel told me otherwise, off I went.

Neuhaus was somewhat mischievous as a youngster – and very smart. What (or who?) was the most influential “mold” in his life that channeled this energy into action?

I think the key moment happens when he’s a young man knocking about small-town Texas, bored and brainy. A friend he was rooming with, and their local pastor, agreed that Neuhaus’ energies needed to be channeled more productively and they were convinced the best possible channel was a religious vocation. They were right.

Describe Fr. Neuhaus in three words.

Faithful, joyful, fearsome.

Politically, Fr. Neuhaus moved from the left to the right and everywhere in between. Why? How did he maintain public prestige and respect despite his changing allegiances?

His ability to speak beyond his immediate religious and political affiliations had a lot to do with this, I think. In other words, yes, Fr. Neuhaus was a great hero to his fellow left-leaning clergymen and activities in the 1960s and 1970s, and likewise to his rightward readership and colleagues in the 1980s and thereafter, but because he was committed to making a case for religion’s place in public life that was informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition but not limited in audience to those of your own creed, he was able to maintain his influential public profile. Also, he was always a reliably sharp and cogent quote for reporters!

Bipartisanship was one of Fr. Neuhaus’ signature traits. He was famously active in both parties from the Civil Rights and anti-war movements of the 60s and 70s to the pro-life movement in later years. This made him a unique man who, in a way, transcended politics. Are all Catholics called to cross party lines?

I’m not sure bipartisanship was exactly one of Fr. Neuhaus’ signature traits. He often claimed as much, and certainly was interested in ecumenical and interfaith alliances throughout his career, but when he was a radical Democrat, he was a radical Democrat, and when he was a neoconservative Republican, he was a neoconservative Republican. I always found his insistence, in his later years, that he maintained his Democratic Party membership a facile means of attesting to his bipartisan commitments. As for whether all Catholics are called to cross party lines, I think the right ordering of one’s religiously-informed principles and priorities for public life translate into political affiliations that are never, ever perfectly aligned, nor should they be. Keeping that in mind is the key, I think, when it comes to party commitments.

The American Experiment was near to Fr. Neuhaus’ heart. He dedicated his life to proposing that matters of faith and theology could not be divided from matters of public life, politics, and culture, even running for office as a Lutheran Pastor. Why was living his faith in the public square so important to him?

This is a great question. I think he was of the view that when we deliberate, together, those issues that matter most to our sense of individual rights and communal responsibility, whether locally, nationally, or internationally, we naturally seek to draw on our deepest convictions. These convictions, more often than not in the United States, are religious in nature. But what exactly does it mean, or involve, when you want to draw on your religious beliefs in addressing matters of public import? How can this be done without affirming a State religion or inviting opponents to call for the total banning of religious contributions in public life? Fr. Neuhaus’ vocation was to offer an often first-person demonstration, in words and deeds, for how to live out faith in the public square.

What is the legacy that Fr. Neuhaus left for Catholics in America?

Fr. Neuhaus’ legacy, I think, involves first of all, any number of religious vocations and conversions that were inspired amongst people who had contact with him and his writings and work. Beyond that, I’d say the very natural way that we debate the place of religion in public life owes a great deal to Fr. Neuhaus’ establishing the terms of this debate, and inviting thoughtful Catholics to make their contributions alongside their fellow citizens.

How many different “sexualities” are there in Catholic moral teaching?

It’s a short quiz—if you guessed “one and only one,” you are exactly right.

This basic truth, of course, is something the culture has gotten exactly wrong for decades. Claiming that “sexualities” exist is the very foundation for the massively proliferating confusion and contention over sexual morality in the last several generations. And we Catholics need to be willing to stand against ideologies that promote the existence of “sexualities,” both in the Church and in culture at-large.

It may be that some readers are somewhat confused at this point—am I being serious? Isn’t this some kind of extremist misrepresentation of Church teaching? Am I really suggesting that, for example, homosexuality isn’t a “sexuality” unto itself, just like heterosexuality? Bisexuality, transsexuality, asexuality, autosexuality, pansexuality—am I saying they really don’t exist?

Well, no—these terms exist to describe attractions and experiences that are real enough. They’re just not sexualities. Rather, they are divergent paths away from authentically human sexuality.

Let’s let the Church interject some clear teaching at this point, right from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. First, in Paragraph 2360, we are taught that “sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman.” Then in Paragraph 2361, we receive an incredibly clarifying quote from Pope St. John Paul II (from “Familiaris Consortio,” 11):

“Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.” [CCC Paragraph 3261]

How does one realize “sexuality” in a truly human way? One does so only if “sexuality” is an integral part of the “conjugal love of man and woman.” Sexuality, in its one-and-only existing and God-created reality, is ordered only to the love of man and woman that ultimately brings them to marriage.

This is why every other so-called “sexuality” expressed in culture today is something less than a fully human expression of human love—because it’s not properly ordered toward married love.

This belief is so utterly counter-cultural that even many Catholics have difficulty grasping it in its utter simplicity. Indeed, it’s pejoratively referred to now as “heteronormativity” and viewed as virtually discriminatory to assert this. Court cases are now being lost by those in the United States who adhere firmly to this basic principle of Catholic teaching.

The deep and abiding pushback against this teaching is so fierce precisely because acknowledging a singular “sexuality” fully undermines all assertions of identity based on “sexualities.” In this context, “sexualities” is to “sexuality” as “Protestant” is to “Catholic”—to claim that my “sexuality” is different from the one ordered to conjugal love is to make a clear protest against a longstanding reality and to expect that longstanding reality to simply stop being what it is just because you’re protesting against it. But that’s just not how God’s plan for us actually works. The fact that there are “Protestants” doesn’t change the reality that the Catholic Church remains One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Similarly, the fact that people adhere to a plural definition of “sexualities” does not change the awesome truth of God’s plan for creating us male and female and uniting man and woman in marriage via our sexual identity—not as “gay” or “straight”—but as male and female.

Pope St. John Paul II, in his Theology of the Body, spends much time in teaching the essential importance of self-mastery and of every human person’s responsibility to discern whether each and every experience of our “sexuality” is truly something to be willed as being in keeping with authentic purity of heart. In simpler terms, this means that every one of us must interiorly examine every sexual urge, sexual impulse, sexual feeling, sexual desire, sexual attraction —whatever one wants to call it—to determine whether it’s in keeping with authentic purity of heart. How do we determine this? We need to ask whether this or that sexual feeling, in our immediate and concrete circumstances, is or is not properly ordered toward the conjugal love of man and woman—regardless of whether we’re married or not. We can only willingly say “yes” to those sexual impulses, attractions, desires, etc., that are truly ordered toward married love. Anything other than this is an experience of “sexuality” that is not a “truly human” experience.

If I’m married and I experience a surge of sexual attraction toward someone other than my spouse, I’m called to say “no” to that experience. If unmarried, I’m called to say “yes” only to those sexual attractions that, in accord with God’s plan, are there to potentially move me closer toward fully-realized conjugal love with the very person toward whom I experience that attraction.

And let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that we can define such “sexual” attractions as merely those experiences of “desire” for something physical or “biological”—above, Pope St. John Paul II makes it clear that “sexuality” concerns the innermost being of the human person “as such” (as human!) and cannot be reduced to the biological. This means that those sexual attractions that are not directly “physical” must still be examined in our hearts to determine whether they are indeed ordered toward conjugal love, or not. In other words, “sexuality” is not reducible to “whether I want to have sexual relations with” this or that person. Sexuality is rather God’s way of drawing together a man and a woman for that uniquely permanent, exclusive, free, total, faithful, and fruitful communion of persons we call marriage. Sexuality is about that full reality, not just about the “physical” part.

So, courageous readers, how did you do on this short Catholic quiz? Let me know by leaving a comment! And be encouraged—we can stand fast, together, despite the torrents of opposition. Let’s continue to pray for the many in our culture and the many of our fellow Catholics who are still struggling to see this simple truth about “sexuality” as a beautiful shining light in God’s plan for us.

“Take Me to Church” is the song by Hozier that debuted in September 2013 but is getting attention now, notably at the Grammys, where he sang it with Annie Lennox.

The problem is Hozier — Andrew Hozier-Byrne is his name in his small Irish town’s phonebook — sings a song that would have labeled him as a detestable bigot if he was singing about anything but the Catholic Church.

He sings:

“Take me to church / I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies / I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife.”

“Take me to church for a gay wedding / I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies.”

Because, you see, he knows it is wrong to hate gay people. He is very passionate about that.

“There’s no excuse for ignorance,” he told the Irish Times. “You have to recognize in yourself, and challenge yourself, that if you see racism or homophobia or misogyny in a secular society, as a member of that society, you should challenge it. You owe it to the betterment of society.”

Well said, Mr. Hozier. You have convinced me that I owe it to the betterment of society to challenge you, because I see offensive hatred in your song. Yes, [update] I know it is a song about a love relationship; but as you have made it clear, it is also a song about the Church.

We who kneel in Church are compared to dogs in your song, which the whole world is listening to. You suggest the Church is “sharpening our knives,” making us wicked attackers, as well.

From your privileged Irish life, you may think that characterizing Christians as wicked dogs is harmless, but do you know what is happening to many of my Christian sisters and brothers worldwide?

Christian children are being crucified and buried alive by people who compare us to dogs, like you do. You say “Take Me to Church” but I wouldn’t want you to take you to their churches, because people really are sharpening their knives there, with my people as their targets.

You make church sound like a terrible, awful place. In China, the government’s leaders agree with you, wholeheartedly. But I wouldn’t take you to church there, either, because we could both get arrested.

I wouldn’t want to take you to church in India, either. A wave of persecution is attacking Catholics there, too, including children.

I know, why don’t I take you to my church? There you can see what really happens in churches. We dog-like Catholics that you despise are praying for the hurt, the broken, the damaged. Then we are doing all we can to serve them.

That’s what Catholics do. Even critics have to admit we provide a huge percentage of the social services in America.

On the one hand, we Catholics are used to being the last acceptable prejudice. You can say things about us without consequence that, if you said about anyone else, would make you look like a despicable, bigoted person.

On the other, why would you?

Mr. Hozier, it’s good that you do not want to criticize gay people. That makes you a good Catholic, as far as that goes. But now you need to stop dehumanizing me. Stop comparing a class of people to animals. Have some compassion for our men, women and children who are being slaughtered. Even if you make a lot of money by doing it.

Because, I hate to be the one to break it to you, the words that are making you rich make you sound like an insensitive, despicable bigot.

If you happen to be visiting the Southern California area, head to Simi Valley, north of Los Angeles, home of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library. Situated on a hilltop with beautiful views of the surrounding countryside (yes, there still is countryside in the Southland), it’s an interactive walk through Reagan’s personal, professional and political lives.

Included in the tour is the Air Force One Pavilion, where the plane that took the former president on his trips around the world is mounted intact on huge pylons in a glass-walled hangar, with a pub and gift shop underneath. Visitors can tour through it and also through a Marine One helicopter in the same building.

The Library also houses traveling exhibits, and running from Jan. 31 until May 1, 2015, is “Amazing Automobiles: The Ultimate Car Exhibit,” a partnership with L.A.’s Petersen Automotive Museum, whose new home is under construction and set to open in December. In the meantime, it’s opened the vault and allowed several cars important in world and entertainment history to be on display at the Library.

They include cars owned or driven in movies by Steve McQueen and Elvis, the 1946 custom Ford from the movie “Grease,” the famous 1966 Ford Thunderbird from “Thelma and Louise,” a 1942 Lincoln limo used by presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and a 1938 Packard Super 8 Parade Phaeton used by Argentinian leaders Juan and Evita Peron.

There’s also the the car pictured above, a 1998 Cadillac (click here to see it profiled in Popular Mechanics), situated in the Air Force One Pavilion. The plaque next to it at the Library reads:

This lavish parade car was specially built for Pope John Paul II to ride in as he entered the Estadio Azteca in Mexico to deliver an important address. Lengthened and modified into an open car, it was equipped with an elevated platform for the armchair-like papal seat, wide doors, retractable steps, and official Vatican seals and flags. Although General Motors de Mexico began work on the car, Cadillac contracted with the American coach-building firms of Eureka Coach and Roush Technologies to complete the project. The pope personally blessed the Cadillac upon its completion but was not permitted to use it in public because it did not have the same level of protection afforded by an enclosed vehicle with armor plating and bullet-resistant glass.

In its piece, Popular Mechanics added:

The papal seat sits on a hydraulic system that can raise or lower the seat by up to 20 inches.

One wonders if this car could come out of mothballs, since Pope Francis is willing to run the risk of riding in open vehicles all around the world, including the Jeepney popemobile he used during his just-concluded visit to the Philippines.

If you’re curious why a popemobile is included in an exhibit at the Reagan Library, you’re too young to remember that President Reagan joined now-Saint Pope John Paul II and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to form a powerful triumvirate that helped to hasten the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism — symbolized by this fragment from the Berlin Wall that sits just outside the Library.

Click here to see an EWTN story on Saint Pope John Paul II’s 1999 visit to Mexico, during which he celebrated Mass at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City.

Several years before that, Ronald Reagan visited John Paul II in Rome. In a piece titled “The Holy Alliance,” originally published in TIME magazine on Monday, Feb. 24, 1992, Carl Bernstein (of “All the President’s Men” fame) recalls the meeting:

Only President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II were present in the Vatican Library on Monday, June 7, 1982. It was the first time the two had met, and they talked for 50 minutes. … Reagan and the pope spent only a few minutes reviewing events in the Middle East. Instead, they remained focused on a subject much closer to their heart: Poland and the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. In that meeting, Reagan and the pope agreed to undertake a clandestine campaign to hasten the dissolution of the Communist empire. Declares Richard Allen, Reagan’s first National Security Adviser: “This was one of the great secret alliances of all time.”

EWTN also has the full text of Reagan’s address to Saint Pope John Paul II, on Monday, June 7, 1982. You can read the president’s remarks here; the text of the pope’s address is here.

Excerpt from Reagan:

Ours is a nation grounded on faith; faith in man’s ability, through God-given freedom, to live in tolerance and peace, and faith that a Supreme Being guides our daily striving in this world. Our national motto, “In God We Trust,” reflects that faith.

Many of our earliest settlers came to America seeking a refuge where they could worship God unhindered. So, our dedication to political and individual freedoms is wedded to religious freedom as well. Liberty has never meant license to Americans. We treasure it precisely because it protects the human and spiritual values we hold most dear: the right to worship as we choose; the right to elect democratic leaders; the right to choose the type of education we want for our children; and freedom from fear, want and oppression. These are God-given freedoms, not the contrivances of man.

And from Saint Pope John Paul II:

The American people are indeed proud of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are proud of civil and social progress in American society, as well as the extraordinary advances in science and technology. As I speak to you today, it is my hope that the entire structure of American life will rest ever more securely on the strong foundation of spiritual and moral values. Without the fostering and defense of these values, all human advancement is stunted, and the very dignity of the human person is endangered.

At this moment in time, 1982 sure seems very far away, especially considering the state of faith and virtue in American society. But the achievements of Reagan, John Paul II and Thatcher stand witness to what world leaders, with the help of Divine Providence and their own determination, can do to advance the causes of human life and freedom.

]]>https://www.catholicvote.org/the-popemobile-that-never-was/feed/0The Call to Prayer, Pluralism, Provocations, and the Pope’s Punchhttps://www.catholicvote.org/the-call-to-prayer-pluralism-provocations-and-the-popes-punch/
https://www.catholicvote.org/the-call-to-prayer-pluralism-provocations-and-the-popes-punch/#commentsFri, 16 Jan 2015 14:41:53 +0000Joshua Bowmanhttp://www.catholicvote.org/?p=64481Religious freedom is a basic human right. This is not terribly controversial by itself, but when we come to the details, things can get messy. At Duke University, a Muslim student group received permission to recite the Friday call to prayer from the bell tower of the neo-gothic nondenominational chapel on campus–only to have it canceled due to security threats. In France, the government has responded to the Charlie Hebdo massacre by announcing a crackdown on “hate speech.” Halfway around the world, Pope Francis gave one of his famous off-the-cuff interviews, raising eyebrows with his comment about punching someone for insulting his mother. Religious freedom has its limits then, but to borrow an old expression, the Blue Devil is in the details.

The Duke Chapel bell tower

First off, Duke University is a private institution. They have no obligation to encourage or support religious expression. The school was founded by Quakers and Methodists and the chapel is an interdenominational Christian house of worship. However, like so many of America’s elite universities, Duke has become so hyper-secularized that it would be intellectually dishonest for the school to deny one religious group the use of facilities while permitting it for others. On the other hand, surrendering to threats of violence is the worst of all possible worlds and sets a dangerous precedent.

If anything, this episode demonstrates the importance of maintaining a strong Christian identity. If we do not believe that ours is the true faith and that Jesus is the son of God but instead that every religion has an equal claim to the truth, it stands to reason that the academy must encourage students to seek the truth however they see fit. As Benjamin Franklin wrote in his Autobiography:

And it being found inconvenient to assemble in the open air, subject to its inclemencies, the building of a house to meet in was no sooner proposed, and persons appointed to receive contributions, but sufficient sums were soon received to procure the ground and erect the building, which was one hundred feet long and seventy board, about the size of Westminster Hall; and the work was carried on with such spirit as to be finished in a much shorter time than could have been expected. Both house and ground were vested and in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.

This is a lofty ideal, but as the events at Duke show, it is more difficult to put into practice. The Friday call to prayer would not pose any conflict with Christian worship on Sundays, but as other communities have discovered, the demands of Islamic daily prayer are quite rigorous and can become a nuisance for nonbelievers. Still, it is far preferable to have church bells pealing to mark the hours alongside the Muslim call to prayer than to have all religions silenced in the name of fairness, or worse, some elusive definition of “security.” A world without bells–as some Muslims would wish it–would be a dull and joyless place.

In France, where they do not have the First Amendment and where the church bells are already being silenced, dozens of people have now been arrested for “hate speech.” Paradoxically, this crackdown comes days after millions marched in the streets of Paris in support of free speech. Such laws have been solidly rejected here in the United States and for good reason. The right to free speech without the right to offend is no right at all. Even defending the First Amendment will offend some people. If you place such a nebulous restraint on freedom of speech, you just can’t win.

In America, we uphold the rights of the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazis, and Hustler Magazine so that we can also defend the rights of Christians and Muslims–not only the right to worship, as President Obama so often misconstrues the First Amendment, but in all our daily affairs, even something as simple as facial hair. Although we oppose in the strongest possible terms anyone who supports Satanists for the grave peril they bring upon their souls, we nevertheless support their rights, at least in principle, but even that only goes so far. If their diabolical rituals involve the theft of the precious body of Our Lord or public lewdness, it is a crime.

Questioned about the Charlie Hebdo attacks specifically, Pope Francis basically reiterated parts of his remarks condemning violence from his public appearances in Sri Lanka, which is still recovering from decades of civil war and sectarian violence. This is all clearly stated in the Catechism, but perhaps in an attempt at humor, the Pope remarked that if his assistant insulted his mother, “He should expect a punch.”

In First Amendment jurisprudence we have the “fighting words” doctrine. However, even then, the doctrine gives the government the right to curtail fighting words, but it does not remove the penalty for assault and battery. Fighting is always wrong, but in certain extreme and circumscribed cases, the provocation can be wrong as well. To use football jargon, the penalties do not offset. Moreover, things like the Muslim call to prayer or Chrarlie Hebdo’s vile scribblings clearly do not qualify as fighting words. Pope Francis’ comments then are not particularly helpful for American Catholics who will need the First Amendment more than ever in coming years.

Pope Francis does hit [har har] on an important point though: Catholics should have a stronger identity so that we would feel like an insult on our mother the Church is a personal attack. We should be passionate about our faith! However, as Christians, Jesus commands us to turn the other cheek as Archbishop Leonard of Brussels demonstrated so powerfully when attacked by militant feminists. Though we may wish to throw a punch in defense of our faith as St. Nicholas did at the Council of Nicea in 325, we must master those emotions and in doing so serve as witnesses to the mercy of God. It is good for us to be offended by so much of what is happening in the world today–most notably the horrifying atrocities of Boko Haram in Nigeria, because it is all so very ugly and inhumane. It is better still for us to show reasonableness and charity even when faced with so much darkness so that we may reflect the light of Christ across a world which so desperately needs it.

]]>https://www.catholicvote.org/the-call-to-prayer-pluralism-provocations-and-the-popes-punch/feed/6Wait. Do We Get To Be Charlie Hebdo Too?https://www.catholicvote.org/wait-do-we-get-to-be-charlie-hebdo-too/
https://www.catholicvote.org/wait-do-we-get-to-be-charlie-hebdo-too/#commentsThu, 15 Jan 2015 17:00:07 +0000Tom Hoopeshttp://www.catholicvote.org/?p=64425

Thank God the Pope said what he did about Charlie Hebdo. He said it’s wrong to kill in the name of God, but it’s also wrong to insult people in the name of secularism.

I love the Charlie Hebdo demonstrations. They are a beautiful show of respect for human rights, defense of free speech and solidarity with the suffering families of magazine staff gunned down by terrorists.

Their message is powerful: You can’t kill people just because you don’t like their ideas.

Even if their ideas are disgusting: Charlie Hebdo depicted the holy texts of the major religions as toilet paper rolls, drew Mohamed as a porn model and repeatedly prints vulgar pictures of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary.

American commentators tend to admit that Charlie Hebdo publishes some very unsavory things, then add: “I may not agree with everything they say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it!”

Good ! Now apply that principle to religious speech, not just religion-hating speech.

I know the outpouring of support for Charlie Hebdo is in large part a response to the lives of the 12 staff members lost in the terrorist attack. Good again. They are precious lives and deserve to be honored.

The real Charlie Hebdo magazine once featured a caricature of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit sodomizing each other. We may disagree, but we will defend to the death their right to say it.

Can Kevin Cochran be Charlie Hebdo? He was the Atlanta fire chief who was fired for his views on homosexuality.

Will we defend Kevin Cochran’s right to say what he believes about homosexuality? Why not?

Can pro-lifers be Charlie Hebdo?

The actual Charlie Hebdo featured a cartoon calling for creches in public places – with a picture of the baby Jesus in a toilet.

If we defend Charlie Hebdo for the baby Jesus in a toilet, can’t we defend pro-lifers promoting respect for real babies? Can sidewalk counselors be Charlie Hebdo?

Brendan Eich, a brilliant web entrepreneur, resigned under pressure as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of the Firefox web browser, because in 2008 he had he donated $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, in which California voters defended the way every major religion and most of humanity defines marriage.

Charlie Hebdo magazine featured Pope Benedict elevating a condom instead of the Eucharist, and, later, Pope Benedict resigning to be with his gay swiss guard lover. They feature Pope Francis dressed like an erotic dancer in Rio, “soliciting the clients.”

Can Brendan Eich get as much respect as Charlie Hebdo? Can we defend his right to free speech, too?

Because no candidate received over 50% of the vote on November 4, the top candidates are facing off on December 6. The two candidates are Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican Bill Cassidy.

The CatholicVote.org Research Team has been hard at work this election season to ensure that Catholic voters across the country are well-informed when they reach the polls.

We believe the choice is clear: Catholics and all Louisianans should vote for Bill Cassidy for U.S. Senate.

This flyer features a simple side-by-side comparison of the candidates’ positions on issues that are foundational to Catholics. On issues such as life, marriage and religious liberty, Bill Cassidy is immeasurably better than Mary Landrieu.

Mary Landrieu calls herself a Catholic, but she refused to vote for religious liberty protections in the Senate and she has a 100% pro-abortion record since 2008. Electing Bill Cassidy will give Louisianans another pro-life vote in the Senate.

We have also included other areas of concern to Catholic voters, including fiscal responsibility, education and health care. On these issues, we also think that Bill Cassidy comes out on top. Unlike abortion which involves an intrinsic evil which can never be justified, Catholics are free to disagree on which approach is best on education, health care and education.

Bill Cassidy is pro-life. In the House of Representatives, he supported the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who feel pain after 20 weeks. Source: House of Representatives Voting Database

Mary Landrieu has consistently voted to keep abortion legal. She has a 100% pro-abortion record since 2008. The radical pro-abortion group Emily’s List proudly declares Mary Landrieu as one of the “Women We Helped Elect.” Sources: Landrieu Record, Emily’s List.

MARRIAGE:

Bill Cassidy believes marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Source: Wall Street Journal

Landrieu thinks that marriage should be redefined, but claims she will respect the will of Louisiana voters. Source: New York Magazine

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:

Bill Cassidy believes that freedom of religious is crucial for all Americans. “Freedom of religion and our First Amendment rights must be protected and respected. The President and congressional Democrats supported this federal mandate, which conflicts with Louisiana values. It’s not the government’s responsibility to tell business owners the extent of which they can practice their faith in everyday business decisions. I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to stop Washington bureaucrats from taking away this religious liberty.” Source: Representative Bill Cassidy official website

Mary Landrieu voted for a bill that would force for-profit employers to pay for contraceptives and abortifacents in their health care plans. Source: Congressional Voting Records

Bill Cassidy opposes Common Core. “Dr. Cassidy strongly believes that parents and teachers, not federal bureaucrats, will make the best education decisions for students.” Source: Cassidy for Senate campaign website

Mary Landrieu promotes the implementation of Common Core in Louisiana. Source: The Times Picayune